Evidence In Forensic Cases

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

The definition of forensic science is any scientific research, method, or theory used to analyze evidence in an attempt to solve legal cases (Cho). In recent years, there has been growing public interest in forensic science, arguably because of the numerous television programs that glamorize its practices. This phenomenon is part of what is known as the CSI effect, or the process through which devoted fans of popular crime dramas develop unrealistic notions of forensic science methods, practices, and their applications in real life cases (Mancini 544; Stevens 37; Ley, Jankowski, and Brewer 52). The CSI effect has had more negative impacts on forensic science and society than positive impacts, especially in regards to what goes on in the

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

Forensic science can be defined as the relationship between law and science; it answers the questions of how, why and who committed the crime, with the input of multiple actors. However, there are currently problems with

In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

In Opposition of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Historically, we know that a bloodstain pattern analysis dates back to the 1800s, but lately has it been subject to rigorous authentication. “At this time very little is known about this beyond the instincts of knowledgeable instructors and investigators who have observed the reproducibility of bloodstain patterns over many crime scenes and practical sessions in the classroom.” DNA analysis now used to identify who bled at a crime scene, but bloodstain pattern analysis is still a vital tool. For instance, it is common for a suspect to claim that he was stained by a victim’s blood while trying to render aid.

Circumstantial evidence is probably one of the biggest ethical concerns when people are being convicted of crimes. Circumstantial evidence is: “Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute”. (Dictionay.com, 2010). Many

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

Criminal justice systems must ensure the review of the forensic science by providing standardization of the interpretation of evidence. Trusting that the system at hand which relies upon an adversary system can ensure adequate protection from faulty forensic science is unrealized (Gershman, 2007). Most importantly is the lack of checks and balances in a judicial system where according to the Bureau of Justice Department (2011), 90 to 95% of criminal cases in state and federal level are resolved by plea bargain (3). Forensic science should be validated before its use through empirical standardized, and the court system must subscribe to the ethical use of forensics to serve justice (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). Prosecutorial misconduct contributes significantly to wrongful convictions (Joy,2006). Examples are not isolated nor rare, and conclusion coupled with unprincipled motivation requires a more stringent requirements ethics, transparency, and standardization (Joy,2006). Criminal justice systems do not identify innocent defendants, thereby losing significant factors that contribute to wrongful conviction (Gould, J. et al., 2013). Police and the courts continuously increase their reliance on forensic science to corroborate evidence, signifying the necessity for validation and standardization (Strom, K., & Hickman, M., 2015). However, we must embrace that flawed forensics impacts our criminal justice system and can contribute to the death of the innocent. Blind faith in a proven imperfect system jeopardizes

“In 1984, a British geneticist named Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon one of our most important forensic tools: DNA fingerprinting. Since his “eureka moment,” the scientific technique has been used successfully to identify perpetrators of a crime, clarify paternity and exonerate people wrongly convicted” (Jones). DNA evidence, specifically simple-mixture, is the most accurate type of forensic evidence we currently have at our disposal, but even it is not infallible. Other types of forensic evidence are much less accurate, but unfortunately their use is still permitted in U.S courtrooms. Jurors may be misled by experts within the courtroom as well. These misconceptions about the accuracy of forensic science and the field in general lead to many problems in the courtroom.

In a consequent study to that discussed above, another team of researchers investigated the effect of forensic evidence on the outcome of various criminal cases. By analyzing data from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the researchers concentrated their study on decision-making during the cases, characteristics of these cases, and how forensic evidence relates to these cases (Peterson, 2013). Due to the scope of this paper, the study of how forensic evidence relates to the

In McClure, Weisburd and Wilson (2008) summary article arguing that in addition to bench science, field experimentation involving forensic methods is key to assess the utility of various methods to solve crimes. The study reflected that there is a need for more research into many aspects of forensic science, criticizing the strength of scientific evidence that’s collected at a crime scene and interpretations of most forensic methods while omitting DNA testing. McClure et al’s (2008) explains that in sexual cases and homicides, the presence of DNA evidence actually increased the likelihood of prosecution and a conviction. According to the article “…the case of convictions, the odds-ratio for the presence of DNA evidence was 33.1 for sexual offenses and 23.1 for homicides” (McClure et al., 2008). Subsequently, the research shows that there was a consistent gradual decline in the national homicide rates that began in the 1900s and continued through into the 21st century. The decline of homicides in the US has dropped by from more than 90% in the 1960s to 62% in 2003. Even though this significant drop has occurred during the introduction of the new DNA testing

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”  (Harris vs. United States, 1947).